ELECTIVE CASE STUDY 02 · COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

From Court Time to Community: A Public-Facility Retention Strategy

Abdul Jordan · Jordan Park academic facility model

A public racquet sports facility should not have to choose between open access and a durable program community. Jordan Park's proposed model keeps public courts free while using funded lessons and programming, separately approved events, and thoughtful follow-up to help people return. This case study shows how I would connect those experiences without treating every free-court player as a sales lead. It is a plan, not a report of results from an operating facility.

The public promise comes first

Eight tennis courts and four pickleball courts create opportunity, but the schedule determines who actually gets to play. The current Business Plan requires a dated court-and-staff roster to validate free public access alongside organized programs. No fixed public-court allocation is claimed here; camps, tournaments and weather makeups must be tested together before a schedule is approved. I would publish the access rules in plain language, review court use weekly, and require a separate allocation before a camp or tournament takes additional space.

A pathway, not a funnel that ends at payment

The Community Engagement Strategy moves through exposure, experience, connection, conversion, and retention. At Jordan Park, exposure could begin with a school visit, an open-play day, a partner referral, or a resident arriving on their own. A first experience should include a welcome, a suitable activity, and accurate information about both free and paid options. Connection means a staff member learns what the participant is looking for and introduces a person or program that fits. Conversion may be enrollment, but it can also be a second free-play visit or a first social game. Retention means the facility remains useful over time.

One proposed monthly cycle

  • Before the event: Invite schools, recreation partners, active adults, and neighborhood groups. Explain cost, equipment, accessibility, and the free-court policy in the same message.

  • At the event: Offer a short tennis or pickleball activity with an achievable success, then give participants a choice of open play, a beginner class, or a social session.

  • Within two days: Follow up only with people who opted in. Send the promised information, the right next step, and a named contact for questions.

  • At 30 and 60 days: Review whether participants returned, which option they chose, and what barriers they reported. Invite inactive participants back without assuming a paid program is the answer.

Front-desk and coaching staff need the same program descriptions so a participant does not receive conflicting advice. RecTrac can support registration and follow-up in the proposed model, but data collection should be limited to what the service needs, with consent and an easy way to stop messages.

What success would mean

I would review new-player reach, repeat free play, introductory-to-next-step movement, program completion, 60-day return, off-peak court use, and partner feedback. Paid enrollment and program contribution matter, but they should be reported alongside access and participant experience. A full clinic with shrinking free-court availability would not meet the public mission. Nor would a crowded open-play day count as retention if nobody knew how to return.

Tradeoffs and decisions

If demand exceeds capacity, test another time slot or a partner site before taking more public courts. If beginners attend once but do not return, examine welcome, cost, level placement, transportation, and scheduling. If a partner event produces many inquiries but few lasting relationships, improve the handoff instead of simply increasing promotion. The aim is a facility people can enter easily and continue to use in more than one way.

Explore the model: Industry plan · Business Plan · Program pathways · All articles

Decision and evaluation design

Recommended approach: Offer both free-play and paid-program next steps, with consent-based follow-up. A promotion-only approach may increase first visits but provides little help with returning; a membership model would conflict with the current free-access promise. This proposal retains open access and tests whether a clearer handoff improves return.

Available evidence: The Industry plan states the access mission; the Business Plan identifies capacity and funding limits. Neither establishes actual retention. Record event cohorts and review 30- and 60-day return separately from paid-program retention, using registration records and an optional participant follow-up for unregistered free play.

Interpretation: Report cohort size, consent rate, missing follow-up and the return definition. Compare similar seasonal cohorts before attributing improvement to outreach; timing, weather and program availability may explain differences.

Management reflection

The public mission changes what counts as success. A participant who returns for free play can represent community value even without additional revenue. The review therefore pairs access and return measures with program contribution, preventing paid enrollment from becoming the only measure of service.